September 06, 2018

"This is worth reading every word. It explains why liberal democrats are beyond angry and reason... About a 3 minute read.

The fury of Democrats has nothing to do with missing pages or hurried timetables. It has everything to do with being sore losers. They still cannot accept that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Doing so would demand coming to terms with why, under President Obama, the party lost not only the presidential election but also an unprecedented number of seats in the Senate, the House, in state legislatures and governors’ mansions across the country.

It would mean admitting that President Obama was a disaster for his party.

During that agonizing descent into impotence – as Democrats lost the House in 2010, the Senate in 2012 and the White House in 2016 – not once did the party veer from policies that clearly were unpopular with voters.

Not once did Democrats loosen their grip on the progressive juggernaut that propelled them forward. They embraced environmental laws that could cripple the country’s energy base, health-care mandates that were affordable only to those subsidized by the government, restrictions on law enforcement agencies that compromised our safety on our streets, regulations on small and big businesses that made them uncompetitive. They made it harder for entrepreneurs to succeed and create jobs, and they supported immigration programs that mocked the rule of law.

Because Democrats lost their majorities in Congress, President Obama took it upon himself to create laws and to implement them. In many instances, such as with Obama’s Clean Power Plan – which would have upended our country’s energy industries – the Supreme Court slammed on the brakes, so egregious was the executive overreach. Ditto the effort to fundamentally change our immigration and labor laws.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against President Obama’s use of recess appointments in the case of National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning. At the time, Bob Goodlatte, a Republican representative from Virginia, said that the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority."

In the 2016 Supreme Court session, the White House lost 10 cases on unanimous decisions. That was a humiliating outcome that included votes from two Obama-appointed justices.

In fact, the Supreme Court ended up being the referee-in-chief, handing down an unprecedented number of unfavorable rulings to the Obama White House. Over time, most presidents score a “win” rate of about two-thirds; for Obama it was about half

This history brings the flap over Kavanaugh into perspective. If you are pushing an unpopular agenda, legislating from the White House is the last resort. But in that scenario, the makeup of the Supreme Court becomes vitally important.

The addition of Kavanaugh will almost certainly tilt the Supreme Court to the right, although over time judges can gravitate one way or another. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, for instance, who was appointed by President Reagan, was initially a reliable conservative voter on the court but over the years become ever more liberal.

For the moment, however, Kavanaugh is solidly conservative; he is, in particular, no fan of the endless spread and intrusion of Big Government. For instance, he declared unconstitutional the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency uniquely unaccountable to Congress or the president.

Kavanaugh’s dislike of an overreaching government is catnip to conservatives, but anathema to liberals, who increasingly embrace a soft form of socialism, encouraging ever more federal control of our industries and our lives.

The Supreme Court with Kavanaugh aboard would become a serious speedbump for progressives. The next Democratic president would be less able to legislate from the White House. Instead, Democrats would have to promote their programs the old-fashioned way; they would have to win some elections.

August 06, 2018

Re: The Democratic Party: What you have here is a POLITICAL PARTY tying to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA with acts of force and violence. I don't know what YOU call that, but I call it WAR. The USA is at WAR with the Democratic Party and their sycophants, and the USA seems unable to properly fight back. THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE USA CONSTITUTION WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A COVER FOR REBELLION VS USA GOVERNMENT.

President Trump, the "shrug and hope it goes away" strategy has failed. For starters, the Democratic Party needs to be sued out of existance as a Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organization, and doing so would be a slam-dunk court case. If this fails to stop the Democrats, then bump it up: POTUS can, as the legitimate Head of State, declare in the United Nations that the USA is in a state of violent armed rebellion. POTUS uses Article 51 of the UN Charter for that (self-defense of members allowed).

If the riots, etc, persist, the President can call out the Militia, and order the Armed Forces to support it. Can you see Pantifa standing up against a Well-Regulated Militia trained and equipped to use deadly force and commanded by officers with ONE order only: Restore Order and end the leftist predations? I can't see that happening.

At some point, the POTUS will need to ask the SCOTUS to remove the jurisdiction of the lower Courts in favor of the Militia's use of the Universal Code of Military Justice during the Restoration period. Yes, that would be the dreaded "martial law", but the USA has already had Martial Law four times that I can read about in the History books: War of 1812, Civil War, World Wars One and Two, each time applied in varying degrees to keep the USA safe from it's sworn enemies.

It's WAR, Mr. Trump. It's not fun, it's not nice, but we have it now, deliberate WAR brought by the Democratic Party. Please, Mr. President, REMOVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY UTTERLY FROM OUR POLITICS, CULTURE AND MIDST.

We are close to having to rise up in our own counter-rebellion, start a Civil War and do the job ourselves. That would be ugly, and leftists from outside of our borders would probably try to get involved on the Democrats' side. Follow my plan to take out the Democrats, Mr. President, and you have no worries about exterior forces coming into play.

June 20, 2018

1. The elected President can't get a thing done, the bureaucracy and Legislative and Judicial branches, most from the past President, actively oppose Trump's Administration, even to the point of calling their oppositon "The Resistance", a term of WAR.

2. The GOP, the President's Party, mostly opposes the President. The GOP "majority" in the Senate is a joke, because at least 6 Senators would rather vote with the opposition Party 90% of the time.

3. The borders are porous and open, all manner of undesireable aliens sneak in and the bureaucracy lets them stay, believing that at some point, resolve will break down and they will be offered Amnesty and become opposition-party voters.

4. The "Resistance" has the nerve to invade a restaurant and chase out a CABINET SECRETARY dining there.

5. The Military is forced to take morale-destroying trans-gender people in as combat troops.

June 16, 2018

The Democrats say that they are going to run Bernie against Trump in 2020. THAT makes sense, because he was second-best behind Crooked Hillary in '16, might even have gotten the nod to run vs Trump except for HRC's fixing several primaries.

So, what will such a 2020 race bring?

It will bring, in short, simply the most starkly different two candidates this Nation has EVER seen run against each other. Bernie Sanders is a Communist. Yes, a COMMUNIST, NOT A SOCIALIST (as even he claims). How do we know that? Easy: the changes he wants to make will have to be made at the point of a gun, or they won't get made. As I've said before on this blog, Socialism at the point of a gun IS Communism.

So, the Democratic party, should it win the election, plans to point guns at citizens and make them to things they otherwise wouldn't do (such as double the Income Tax of the middle class). If YOU were one of those Democrat leaders, wouldn't YOU want to take the citizens' guns away first? It could get real messy those guns were still out there.

I rest my case.

Moral of this little story?

If you don't want to be Communist, citizens of our USA, work to save your 2A. The 2A IS the only thing that will prevent Communism here.

June 15, 2018

Facebook “hate speech”. A game of no-rules football, to be sure. The brass hats at FB admit there are NO concrete definitions of “hate speech”, they admit that they make mistakes, and they admit to employing 7,500 censors, but this is apparently their working definition of “hate speech”1 “we define the term to mean direct and serious attacks on any protected category of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease”. In that word-string, I consider “direct and serious attacks” to be the operative definition. The rest of it is ei-ei-Yo to me. The PeeCee world changes it’s definitions of “protected categories” at least as often as a paid nanny changes a baby’s diapers, maybe even more often.

This article2 from the LA Times is informative, in a “told ya so” sort of way.

What FB needs to do is use a recognized glossary. Now, that glossary is going to vary based upon the nation the writer writes from, and that can be recognized by the use of algorithms.

Specifics: I used the word “muzzies (plural of “muzzie”). Here is a slang dictionary on that word:

“Muzzie n. a nickname for a Muslim. Editorial Note: This word is often, but not always, derogatory. It is not commonly used by North Americans. (Mar 11, 2005

In my banned post, I connected the use of the above slang word with “Terrorism”, which is a legal and military term. Perhaps a better choice for me might have been “Islamic” and “Terrorism”, but then remember POTUS44, who REFUSED to use that word combination. This is NOT a "direct and serious attack" on anyone.

More specifics: I used the name “Junior Trudeau” as I was referring to the MOST RECENT Canadian Premier, but there is a recently-retired one by the same name, the father of the present one, hence the descriptive “Junior”. There is just no way that can be considered offensive, but since my banned post was a comment on a thread by a former Canadian friend and some of his supposed-friends, politically Liberal, all of them, they took my comments on the thread very hard, especially since I had just pointed out that Premier Trudeau seemed to be lying about the Tariff situation between Canada and the USA, AND I showed a joint Canada-USA GOVERNMENT chart proving that Canada’s tariffs on US trade are FAR more excessive than USA tariffs on Canada’s goods. Again, NOT a "direct and serious attack" on Premier Justin Trudeau.

Further investigation: I declare that it’s appropriate, given this INAPPROPRIATE post-banning and “Facebook Jail” term, plus the THREAT of PERMANENT banning, that several things happen, and I am retaining counsel to see if I can bring these things about:

1. Facebook MUST have a glossary of banned speech and use it, ceasing ALL “hate speech” banning until it does. Failure to take this step is a violation of Free Speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

2. Facebook needs to stop playing political favorites, left over right. This same Canadian bunch, one of whom likely finked me out, is KNOWN for lampooning President Trump, and not always politely, either. If I can’t say “Junior Trudeau”, they shouldn’t be able to refer to Trump as an orange ape, or butcher his name (it’s NOT “Drumpf”) or cast unsupported negative personal aspersions about him.

3. Legal issues: Just like the political uses of the Clinton Foundation, there’s one of those tax-exempt funds over at Mark Zuckerberg’s empire. IRS rules for these is that they are CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS, and cannot be used for political purposes. I’m going to bet that Zuck’s is used just like the Clinton's.

UPDATE: 061518 1941 PDT: Facebook lies their ass off. I was informed that I was in FB Jail for 24 hours. After that posted on my timeline, I waited out the 24 hours (blogging, posting on MeWe & Twitter, mostly about Facebook perfidy). Well, even though I have Facebook's word for that on my timeline, they broke THAT contract as well, now let me READ my page, but I can't post anything for another 24 hours. Oh, well, these meglos are all Democrats, so I guess lying goes with their politics. We will see what tomorrow brings. Oh, yeah, Face-planters, tell your legal department I'm coming, and I'm bringing a whirlwind.

Ammoland.com, an online ammo sales outfit, details the D-party hacks who are taking their political machete to the 2A

I could go on, but suffice it to say that using the search term "democrats attack the second amendment", a rather narrow search, I got 546,000 hits. These four are from the first page, so rank very high to Mother Google.

Okay then, the case is made: as a political party, Democrats want to abolish the R2KBA in high numbers, only 12% off a plurality, and as for that 39%-pro-abolish crowd, only slightly more, 41% say they don't want to abolish the 2A. Now, I have some righty-friends, including those I have worked with in Law enforcement, who say "tut-tut" about this rising disdain for our basic right of self-defense (a God-given right at that). When pressed, the tut-tut folks say "it doesn't matter, the constitutional process for removing an Amendment is so strict that it will never be done". Yes, the tut-tutters are correct, it won't ever be done constitutionally. Following the strict letter and intent of our Constitution is not a required political process these days, and both major political parties constantly try to fudge the very obvious intent of constitutional powers of every sort.

The present campaign to present an Initiative, Initiative Petition 43, in Oregon is such an example of fudging. It creates a prohibited category of "assault weapon", then defines "assault weapon" to include every firearm capable of self-loading (long guns AND handguns) with the possible exception of un-modifiable internal-magazine weapons like the Garand Rifle and the Mauser C-96 "broomhandle" pistol. Their definition of "assault weapon" also takes in any weapon which can internally hold 10 or more rounds of ammo, so even your great-grandfather's pump-action .22 Gallery Gun is prohibited, as are most 22 leverguns. The Petition bans all weapons magazines holding more than 10 rounds anyway. This Petition, if approved and voted in this November, would ban well over half the firearms presently sold, and likely more than half of the firearms presently in the possession of Oregon's citizens. It makes possession of banned firearms a felony, so it would make instant felons out of over a million citizens if they didn't jump through the hoops to comply (divest themselves of the guns) on a very short time schedule after the laws became effective.

Initiative Petition 44 (illegal on it's face because of the MacDonald Decision in SCOTUS which abolished this idea), would force total lockdown of all firearms in most circumstances, and project automatic secondary and even tertiary civil liability onto firearms owners if their firearms are stolen and a police report isn't filed within 24 hours (no exceptions). There aren't criminal penalties with this one, but it's a liability lawyer's bonanza, and is illegal on it's face, since the Oregon Constitution would have to be changed to meet those new liability laws, which are illegal today. This petition attacks the R2KBA in the Chicago Style. We know about Chicago Style, don't we? Except for the term as applied to pizza crust, the very expression means illegal activity and rights denial.

These two Petitions for law-making are a continuation of the process of Oregon's Socialist Government which has recently banned person-to-person transfers of firearms (transfer through an FFL is now required) and the due-process-denying ERPO law which allows pissed-off relationship partners to disarm their former significant others.

We're not alone here in Oregon. The R2KBA is under attack everywhere. A new House Bill would bring a new, much more draconian Assault Weapons Ban to the entire nation. If the "blue wave" happens in November, this Bill will become law in the House of Representatives (spit!) Since any "blue wave" is more likely to change the party control in the Senate, the AWB could go to the President in January. Would he veto it? He says no now, but remember, he is a "deal maker". If the Asses offer him something he really wants in exchange for signing it, Trump will sign it.

Okay, the Asses are in full disarmament mode. They are in full Socialist mode, and the case can be made that they really want communism, not socialism. If the USA is forced to disarm like Australia did, we will have full-on socialism at the very least, and socialism at the point of a gun (communism definition) is more likely than not. This is not a pleasant choice to face, and at least 25% of Americans would oppose this political change. Most of that 25% would oppose it violently, and we would have a hum-dinger of a Civil War. Our choice is simple now: deny the Democrats' push for removing the 2A, or go to war.

Yes, it really is that simple. Our only choices now revolve around the threshold to start that Civil War. Do we wait until the Federal Storm Troopers begin to kick in doors to seize guns, or do we pre-emptively remove the socialism from our governance now, thereby ending the threat to our rights?

The 2A was written expressly for this purpose of removing a rights-trampling government. We are pre-authorized to fight, people. The Founders wanted us to fight in these circumstances.

March 15, 2018

This would be the most severe gun-grab in the Nation, if passed. A group calling itself "Interfaith Leaders" proposes to ban all semi-automatic, or magazine-fed firearms. The article says just "Assault Rifles", but the boasting out of the Commissar Knutson's "Church" (bull. commies don't have churches) was to include all semi-autos fed by magazines.

The Initiative process, by which Commissar Knutson proposes to enact this law, is operated by the State of Oregon, so...(my Facebook Post)

My answer to the "Inter-Faith Group" seeking to ban all semi-automatic firearms in Oregon - Here is YOUR future:

1. You have ALREADY conspired to restrict or remove an enumerated Right of the Bill of Rights. You have done that just by MEETING to discuss your ill-conceived Initiative. Legally, that means that Probable Cause might already exist for your arrest on 18 USC 242, Denial of Civil Rights under Color of Authority.

2. "Under Color of Authority" will probably have to be decided in a courtroom, but this 25-year Officer of the Circuit Court of Multnomah County believes that the "Authority" of the State of Oregon is extended willingly down to reside in those following the Initiative Process. The fact that this Initiative IS a de-jure Denial of Civil Rights cannot even be challenged.

3. Prior to the Finding that the Initiative Process DEPENDS on the Color of Authority of the State of Oregon, there is another legal facet to be perfected. That facet is the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organization designation which will apply to the organizers, from the Chief Petitioner on down to the signature-collectors. Under any declaration that a criminal conspiracy exists (a simple True Bill from a Federal Grand Jury or a USAG's Information) the RICO process may be initiated. That process will freeze ALL the assets of the named conspirators, the financial supporters and yes, perhaps even the signers of the Petition (the instrumentality of the criminal conspiracy). A VERY wide swath can be cut by the RICO process, and it might indeed ensnare all governmental officials who had provable Notice of the Petition, were in a position to stop the approval of the Petition but didn't, and maybe even the Judge who approved the ballot title. BTW, for the uninformed, once a judgment of RICO has been rendered, the defendants may be assessed as much as treble damages, in addition to Court Costs, Attorney Fees and all such expense.

4. The final Sword of Damocles hanging over this entire legal proceeding would be Class Action. I believe that there are over two million gun owners in Oregon, and each would be entitled to join in a Class as Plaintiffs, seeking common damages. I should think that those damages would be at least $10K/Plaintiff, which would put the erstwhile gun-grabbers on the legal hook for $20 Billion dollars. Considering the VERY deep pockets of the likes of Soros, Steyer, Bloomberg and other Limousine Liberals who can be expected to empower this conspiracy via their wealth, they probably DO HAVE $20B amongst them.

Your essayist begs for many, many Shares, so someone at the top of this anti-Civil Rights cabal will get my notice. Pass this word, please!

January 22, 2018

Below is a re-post from my FB page 3 days ago, but Judge Napolitano just did a piece of Fox about the Memo and FISA at the end of the Ten am hour (EST). He correctly pointed out what I said three days ago: Why did the House Intelligence Committee sit on the Memo all during the time that the FISA Re-authorizatin Bill was being worked up, passed and sent to POTUS for signature?

The Judge said that if the Memo HAD been released, this FISA Re-authorization would not have whizzed right through, as it did.

Okay, then, more news: Rep Nunes, who runs that Committee, now seems to be backpedalling on the Memo, not holding to his previous release date of 3/18. We all know that Deep State, threatened to the core by the Memo, is putting HUGE pressure on Nunes, but will he cave and find an excuse to further delay #ReleaseTheMemo?

The Judge suggested that the Memo should be released on the Floor of the House, where it is Constitutionally protected from everything and everyone, and I would guess that includes Deep State Court action.

BTW, if you haven't thought about it, the Memo and all the by-play surrounding it is the very definition of a Constitutional Crisis. We don't have the exact words of the Memo, but enough has been leaked to show us that Federal Agencies conspired between themselves (the "Deep State") first, to try to prevent Trump's election, then when he was elected anyway, to present a case IN FISA COURT, to directly undermine his Presidency. You can call that a "soft coup" if YOU want, I call it an attempted Coup in which the bullets just haven't been fired yet.

This Nation is now VERY close to those bullets being fired to try to remove this Administration. Countervailing force WILL be applied when that happens ("when", not "if"), and this Republic dies then. What comes after will depend on who wins that Civil War.

(the post from three days ago)January 19 at 6:58pm · If #ReleaseTheMemo was in full cry BEFORE FISA was just reauthorized, what was the hurry to re-authorize? The answer is that Deep State's power is at stake. There's a VERY good chance that if the voting public had known about this horrible abuse of FISA before the Act came up for renewal, it would never have been renewed in it's present form.

The fact that the FISA kangaroo-court system was hustled through when the hustlers KNEW it had been badly abused means the hustlers were ALL acting for, or at least in favor of Deep State.

January 08, 2018

The Left is in terrible shape, and they need to immediately hire some GOOD communists and fire the shaky-commies who now work for the Democratic Party.

Why, you ask? Easy answer: Nothing that they have tried has worked against Trump, and in fact, all their misbegotten attempts have done is rile up the right, including the Far Right, which I keep MY finger on the pulse of. The Far Right is locked and loaded, and is actively looking for a reason to terminate the ineffective command of the Democratic Party WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE!

Let's look at the past year or so of the Left's failures, shall we?

11/9/16 - the day after the election in which Trump won a resounding Electoral College victory, the Left staged their puny version of Krystallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass, using Antifa. Compared to Hitler's REAL Krystallnacht, the Antifa effort was a dud, did nothing but show up the Lefty Mayors who support that sort of lawbreaking for what they are, terror-lovers.

1/21/17 - The Women's March. The Left organized and paid for the World-Wide Woman's March" Quick: what will that gathering be forever remembered for? Correct, the VAGINAS! Vagina-costumes, Vagina Hats, Vagina talk, probably vagina stink, but I didn't go so can't accurately report on that last one. That was the second major failure.

5/17/17 - After mumbling, and constantly spitting out "Russia Collusion" since the election, the Left FINALLY makes a major move, and the Deep State (now revealed in all it's traitorous malfeasance) stiffs in Robert Mueller, former FBI head, to be a Special Prosecutor to "investigate" Trump in regards to having colluded with Putin's Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. This move also goes rapidly downhill, and despite Deep State interference, by Fall of 2017, it's revealed just how politically-skewed this "investigation" is, and by now, almost a year into Trump's Administration, no collusion has been found, and most Democrats have given up the idea of the Special Prosecutor being able to railroad Trump out of office. In fact, the entire gambit has failed, Grand Mal: every day that goes by now, it's more of the evidence of Hillary's Russia Collusion that we see, not Trump's. The only questions remaining involve how many of Obama's and Hillary's sycophants will be indicted and imprisoned.

Now we see another card being played: the Crazy Trump Gambit. The suggestion of removing Trump from office for mental instability was mentioned pretty much on election day as he won, but now it seems to be the last, dying move of the failed Left. Article Two, Section Four of the US Constitution sets out the conditions under which a president may be impeached: "High Crimes & Misdemeanors". Not a word about purported mental instability, is there? The Left persists, trots out THEIR definition of "incapacitation" as mentioned in Article 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. They even dredge up a cabal of leftist psychologists to try to bolster their case. It won't work, either, for two reasons: The first reason is VPOTUS Mike Pence, who would have to IMMEDIATELY be placed in charge. Pence, a SMART CONSERVATIVE, is going to use the power of the Presidency to quickly return Trump to the helm.

The second reason the Gambit fails is that the writers of Amendment Twenty-five made ZERO provision for a process concerning MENTAL incapacity, the process involved is MEDICAL incapacity. The Left would not be able to choose their doctors, so it would likely be up to the President's physician to make a diagnosis of incapacity. The White House has HOURS of film showing Trump conducting the business of our Nation in fine executive style, and no, drinking a gallon of Diet Coke a day isn't going to be "incapacitation".

The Left WILL keep this failed play on stage, though, all the way into the approaching Congressional Election, when the Electorate will probably finish off the Democratic Party. We can hope for that end of these shaky-commies that way, but in any case, the Nation has the back-up it needs if the left goes FULL-commie.

December 05, 2017

@POTUS has been winning on so many fronts. We on the Right are happy, but we should take warning, too.

The defeated Left is not going to go down quietly, or simply recalculate for another fight later. As I sense their desperation, they are about to play their final card, and this card will be them fomenting a street revolt of a far worse nature than any we've seen so far. Think of Antifa on Meth. Well, probably a lot of them are, but Soros has been hiring them on the cheap, about $1500/month to respond to his call.

What we look for now in this profile is evidence that he has seriously bumped those Wages of Sin. When we see that, you won't wait long to see the bullets fly.